|
I've been thinking along these lines myself lately, and I can't help but think about something I'd read from a tweet, which I'll paraphrase (at much greater length): In business, its very hard to hire an employee over the age of 65. Retirement age exists, in part, because we recognize that there's an actual cognitive decline that takes place in aging humans. So you find a dearth of elderly people in the workforce, as one might expect. However, this simply doesn't apply to politics. Far too many of our elected officials in the US are over the retirement age, and some percentage of them must be experiencing the difficulties that come with aging. Yet, here they are, attempting to address some of the hardest problems humanity has faced, while simultaneously showing visible signs of decline in public. This isn't a party issue -- both parties have this problem for certain. Is it any wonder then that the "solutions" they come up with aren't adequately thought through? Or that their plans are so easily guided by lobbyists, moneyed interested, and so on? This isn't a conspiracy; its just life. At some point, many of us will take on parental roles with our own parents. We do this to care for our families, and because it's necessary; it's very human thing. But we can't seem to implement this for our government, a place where it is sorely needed. We must break the back of our gerontocracy if we're going to survive the coming climate catastrophe. At this point, "necessary" doesn't adequately communicate the urgency of our situation. The retirement age should be enforced for all publicly-held offices. |